Drawer, where Bill is made payable to his Order, against Acceptor. [The plaintiff has proceeded here against the defendant by means of a specially indorsed writ under Order III. r. 6, and on the writ the bill of exchange is set out. The writ is then deemed to be the statement of claim, and no further statement of claim is to be delivered. Order XX. r. 11.] The defendant says that: Defence. 1. He had no consideration for accepting the bill. 2. He accepted it for the price of goods sold and to be delivered to him forthwith by the plaintiff. 3. The plaintiff has not delivered to the defendant the said goods or any part thereof. Holder of a Bill against the Acceptor, Drawer, and Indorsers in 1. The defendant A. B., on June 20th, 1883, drew a bill of exchange for £500, payable to the order of the defendant E. F. notice. See also on this subject Rabey v. Gilbert, 30 L. J. Ex. 170, 172; and Turner v. Samson, 2 Q. B. D. 23; 46 L. J. Q. B. 167; 35 L. T. 537 ; 25 W. R. 240. Now, by the codified law, 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61, s. 50— (1) Delay in giving notice of dishonour is excused where the delay is caused by circumstances beyond the control of the party giving notice, and not imputable to his default, misconduct, or negligence. When the cause of delay ceases to operate notice must be given with reasonable diligence. (2) Notice of dishonour is dispensed with (a) When, after the When exercise of reasonable diligence, notice as required by this Act cannot notice of be given to, or does not reach the drawer or indorser sought to be dishonour charged (b) By waiver, express or implied. : Notice of dishonour is dismay be waived before the time of giving notice has arrived, or after pensed the omission to give due notice: () As regards the drawer in the with. following cases, namely: (1) Where drawer and drawee are the same person: (2) Where the drawee is a fictitious person, or a person not having capacity to contract: (3) Where the drawer is the person to whom the bill is presented for payment: (4) Where the drawer or acceptor is, as between himself and the drawer, under no obligation to accept or pay the bill: (5) Where the drawer has countermanded payment. (d) As regards the indorser in the following cases, namely: (1) Where the drawee is a fictitious person, or a person not having capacity to contract, and the indorser was aware of the fact at the time he indorsed the bill: (2) Where the indorser is the person to whom the N one month after date, and the defendant C. D. accepted the same. 2. The defendant E. F. indorsed the said bill to the defendant G. H., by whom it was indorsed to one M. N., who indorsed it to the plaintiff. 3. At maturity the bill was duly presented for payment to the defendant C. D., and by him dishonoured, whereof due notice was given to the defendants A. B., E. F., and G. H. The plaintiff claims the sum of £500, with interest at the rate of 5 per cent. from the 24th of July, 1877, until judgment or payment (a). Acceptors of an Accommodation Bill against the Drawer on the Implied Indemnity (b). 1. The plaintiffs' claim is for £505 money paid by the plaintiffs as the acceptors of a bill of exchange for £500, dated May 17th, 1883, drawn by the defendant, payable three months after date and accepted by the plaintiffs for the accommodation of the defendant and without consideration. 2. The plaintiffs were compelled to honour the bill at maturity. bill is presented for payment: (3) Where the bill was accepted or made for his accommodation. (a) By R. S. C. Order XVI. r. 6," the plaintiff may, at his option, join as parties to the same action all or any of the persons severally, or jointly and severally, liable on any one contract, including parties to bills of exchange and promissory notes." (b) Where a person accepts a bill without consideration, for the accommodation of another, there is an implied undertaking by that other that he will hold him harmless on the bill, and that if the acceptor be compelled to pay, as he can be by any third party, he will indemnify him. Foreign Bills of Exchange («). Indorsee against Acceptor for Default in Payment. 1. On March 20th, 1876, at Venice, H. B., by his foreign bill of exchange directed to the defendant, required the defendant to pay that his first of exchange (second not paid) to the order of himself, for £500 one month after date, and the defendant duly accepted the same. 2. The said H. B. indorsed the said bill to the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs claim £500 and £- for interest. Defence. The defendant says: 1. He accepted the bill for the accommodation of H. B. and received no consideration for his acceptance. 2. H. B. received no consideration for indorsing the bill. 3. The debt was barred by the Statute of Limitations, 21 Jac. 1, c. 16. 4. The bill was rendered void after issue by a material (a) Foreign bills, as distinguished from inland bills, are such as are A bill of drawn or payable or both abroad. A bill of exchange is, primâ facie, an Exchange inland bill, and therefore in the case of an action brought on a foreign primá bill, the statement of claim ought to state that it is a foreign bill. facie (Byles on Bills, 12th ed. 395.) Foreign bills are often drawn in parts, inland. all the parts together making what is called a set. "Examples or parts of the bill are made on separate pieces of paper. each part being numbered and referring to the other parts. Each part contains a con- How dition that it shall continue payable only so long as the others remain foreign unpaid. These parts should circulate together; or one may be forwarded bills are for acceptance while the other is delivered to the indorsee, thus relieving drawn. him from the necessity of forwarding his part for acceptance, but giving him the indorsee's security immediately, and diminishing the chances of losing the bill. Every transferor is bound to hand over to his transferee all the parts of the bill in his possession." (Byles on Bills, 12th ed. 390.) The whole set, of however many parts composed, constitutes but one bill, and the regular payment and cancellation of any one of the parts extinguishes all. But as between bonâ fide holders for value of different parts of the same bill, he who first obtains a title to his part is entitled to the other parts. (Holdsworth v. Hunter, 10 B. & C. 449.) The drawee should accept only one part, for if two accepted parts should come into the hands of different holders, and the acceptor should pay one, he might be obliged to pay the other parts also. (İb.) For the law regulating the indorsement, acceptance, and payment of foreign bills, see Byles on Bills, 12th ed. 397-405. As to what expenses consequent on the dishonour of a foreign bill, may be recovered, see Re General South American Company, 7 Ch. Div. 637; 47 L. J. Ch. 67; 37 L. T. 599; 26 W. R. 232. alteration, namely, by the alteration of the date from the 20th of March to the 2nd of March. The plaintiff says: Reply. 1. As to the 1st, 2nd, and 4th paragraphs of the defence he joins issue. 2. As to the 3rd paragraph of the defence, the plaintiff was an infant when the cause of action herein occurred, and he commenced this action within six years after he attained the age of twenty-one years. By Indorsee against Indorser for Default in Payment. day of 1. On the 1882, at Berlin, Messrs. C. P., by their foreign bill of exchange directed to M. O., required the said M. O. to pay that their first of exchange (second and third not paid) to the order of themselves for £100 two months after date, and the said M. O. duly accepted the said bill. 2. Messrs. C. P. indorsed the same to the defendant, and the defendant indorsed the said bill to the plaintiff. 3. At maturity the said bill was duly presented for payment, and was dishonoured, whereupon the said bill was duly protested for non-payment thereof, and due notice of the dishonour and of the protest for non-payment was given to the defendant. 1. The defendant was induced to indorse the bill by the fraud of the plaintiff. Particulars of the fraud are as follows: The plaintiff on or about the 15th of May, 1882, falsely and fraudulently stated to the defendant that he had shipped twenty tons of pig iron for the defendant on board the S.S. "Ajax," which he had not done. Promissory Notes (a). Payee against Maker. The plaintiff's claim is against the defendant as maker of a promissory note for £250, dated 1st January, 1883, payable four months after date to the plaintiff. Particulars: Principal Amount due . £250 0 0 10 0 0 £260 00 Payee against Maker of a Note payable by Instalments, where one only of the Instalments is due (b). 1. The defendant, by his promissory note dated the 1st of January, 1883, promised to pay to the plaintiff the sum of (a) At common law a promissory note was not a negotiable instrument but only evidence of a debt; but by the statute 3 & 4 Anne, c. 9, promissory notes were made negotiable. By 7 Geo. 4, c. 6, s. 3, promissory notes for less than £5 payable to bearer on demand are prohibited. It has been made a question whether a note payable to the maker's order is a promissory note within the statute of Anne, and negotiable. (Flight v. Maclean, 16 M. & W. 51; Wood v. Mytton, 10 Q. B. 805.) It is, however, agreed that when such note is indorsed, it then becomes a note payable to bearer or to the indorsee, or his order, according as the indorsement is in blank or to a named person. (Hooper v. Williams, 2 Exch. 13; Absalom v. Marks, 11 Q. B. 19.) But a note payable to an uncertain payee is not a promissory note. (Cowie v. Stirling, 25 L. J. Q. B. 335.) For other decisions as to what will or will not constitute a promissory note, see Watson v. Evans, 32 L. J. Ex. 137; Holmes v. Jacques, L. R. 1 Q. B. 376; Miller v. Biddle, 14 W. R. 110; and 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61, ss. 83, 89, and 3 to 9. In an action against the maker of the note where the promise to pay is general, no presentment to the maker need be proved (Eron v. Russell, 6 M. & S. 505); but where the note contains in the body of it (and not merely in a memorandum at the foot) a promise to pay at a particular place, a presentment at such place must be averred in the statement of claim (Sanderson v. Bowes, 14 East, 500; Spindler v. Grellett, 1 Ex. 384); and presentment at the place specified must be proved, though the maker may not be there to pay, and may have absconded and left no effect or means of payment there. (Sands v. Clarke, 8 C. B. 751; s. 87 of the Act 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61.) In an action on a note payable on demand, a demand need not be proved, for the action itself is a demand. (Rumball v. Ball, 10 Mod. 38.) By 45 & 46 Vict. c. 61, s. 88, the maker of a note by making it (1) engages that he will pay it according to its tenour, and (2) is precluded from denying to a holder in due course the existence of the payee, and his then capacity to indorse. (b) A note of this kind, one made payable by instalments, is within the statute of Anne and negotiable. (See Oridge v. Sherborne, 11 M. & W. 374; Carlon v. Kencaley, 12 M. & W. 139.) Quare, is note payable to maker's order negotiable? No presentment need be averred as against maker unless payable at a particular place. Payable on demand, no demand need be averred. |